Vaccine

[Desert Hound]

I guess folks are doing Fuzzy Math in Arizona because almost 500 dead kids is substantial to me.

Not when you are talking out of a population of 70 million.

So, why do you have a problem with using a harm reduction strategy to save kids? Imagine if one of our kids was one of the 500 that prematurely died…all that shit that you are talking about really doesn’t matter then, right?

We still don't have long term studies on side affects of the drug on various age groups, various demographics, etc.

Every week we read something that they are just learning about the virus, the effectiveness of the various vaxxes, etc.

To mandate something to a group that has no risk without knowing if there are long term affects is not good policy.

Drugs takes years to come to the market. They study if certain groups have issues, etc. We have not done that in this case.

We do know that there is a very high risk group around the world. In that case it is those 65 and older. They have constituted the vast vast majority of all deaths. As such for them it makes sense to take a drug because their risk factor related to covid is very high. In other words the benefit of taking the vaxx far outweigh the risks.

Young people have no risk. We don't change the equation by vaccinating them because they are fine. The wise course for not at risk groups would be long term studies before any mandate goes in place on them.

 

[MacDre]

...my bad, wrong choice of word... maybe it was selection or invitation, anyway not worth going back and looking it up...my actual point was clear and a solid one...and your point of quibbling over semantics is clear as well. Thanks.

Need a hug?

 

[MacDre]

...hope is not a strategy...there are legitimate concerns and questions regarding the vaccine.

Semantics. Pot meet kettle.

 

[espola]

1. We know from other articles posted on this forum the 500 number is over stated. Of those kids some portion have died with COVID instead of from COVID.
2. You can't throw in and compare it to the last 18 months of flu because flu disappeared. You also can't compare flu deaths year over year to COVID since the beginning. Talk about fuzzy math. But, we know comparing COVID year to year, even with the inflated number, to flu year to year. flu deaths can range anywhere from 2x-5x COVID deaths, depending on how bad the flu season is.
3. From other articles posted on the forum, we also know long COVID is also a minimal concern in children, and long flu is much more of a danger.
4. You guys also seem to fails to understand the concept of marginal utility. Decreasing the risk of death [not actual numbers] from 8x to 3x in a person over 60 is a huge deal. Deceasing the chances of death in a child from .01% to .005% is just simply not as much of a big of a deal. Further, given the new dosing, we don't know exactly how much of a benefit against death/hospitalization/long COVID the vaccine is going to be...again the test numbers were very very limited (a good read is the 1 FDA member who wrote out his dissent to support his abstention vote).
5. On the cost end, we simply don't know what the risks are....again because the sample size is so small....particularly in boys.
6. So you guys are just guessing like everyone else. Far more honest to say "I'm scared of the virus" just like the other side is "scared of the vaccine". You may as well throw a dart at a dart board. It's why we are now in a booster conversation....because pharma and the FDA may have made a mistake and those initial mRNA shots should have been spaced out more....but they didn't know what they didn't know.

"articles posted on this forum" is not a reliable source.

 

[met61]

So, you're saying everyone is scared? Personally I'm not scared at all. We take guidance from our doctors, seeking second opinions when necessary. I'm not scared of my kids dying via covid or the vaccination. Sure there are some quack doctors out there (some of you have even posted links by or including them), but I do believe far more doctors actually know what they're talking about versus those that do not. Who would you trust? Someone who claims to be super smart and spends a significant amount of their waking life on a soccer forum (talking about covid) versus scientists/doctors who have spent many years in their field of study?

...how many of those trusted and second opinion doctors provide you guidance on the long-term effects of the vaccine? Of course, this is not a fair question because the answer is unknowable...but we do know, with the exception of EUAs, rigorous long-term studies are essential and required, especially before approving for children.

...there are plenty of legitimate concerns and questions being raised by serious frontline doctors and experts that are going unanswered, and at worse being censored...this alone should be a concern for all laymen, especially parents.

...simple questions of concern that I will pose to you; why do you think the CDC in late September changed their age old definition of vaccine and vaccination, removing the term immunity? Additionally, why do you think the CDC is not recognizing natural immunity with Covid, when they have historically recognized it in most other viruses?

... I've asked doctors these questions and there was a concerning hesitation to give direct answers.

 

[espola]

Maybe so, but that's on the state/county level. Federally its unconstitutional to have a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states ratably. Hence why there is not a federal property tax and why a wealth tax is unconstitutional.

Progressive income tax?

 

[met61]

Semantics. Pot meet kettle.

...pot meet @espola

...let me guess, your next response is "coocoo"

 

[MacDre]

Not when you are talking out of a population of 70 million.



We still don't have long term studies on side affects of the drug on various age groups, various demographics, etc.

Every week we read something that they are just learning about the virus, the effectiveness of the various vaxxes, etc.

To mandate something to a group that has no risk without knowing if there are long term affects is not good policy.

Drugs takes years to come to the market. They study if certain groups have issues, etc. We have not done that in this case.

We do know that there is a very high risk group around the world. In that case it is those 65 and older. They have constituted the vast vast majority of all deaths. As such for them it makes sense to take a drug because their risk factor related to covid is very high. In other words the benefit of taking the vaxx far outweigh the risks.

Young people have no risk. We don't change the equation by vaccinating them because they are fine. The wise course for not at risk groups would be long term studies before any mandate goes in place on them.

Decent analysis but you are minimizing the death of approximately 500 kids. I could be wrong but I was under the impression that side effects from vaccines occur soon after administering the vaccine. The vaccine has been administered world wide and appears to be safe and effective. You scared homie?

So are you opposed to a harm reduction strategy because of all of the politically motivated speculation and conjecture going around?

 

[espola]

Yes there should be a Spanos exception.

The reason the Chargers and Spanos Family Trust are in financial trouble is because of the debts they incurred in the move to LA.

Good riddance.

 

[Grace T.]

Decent analysis but you are minimizing the death of approximately 500 kids. I could be wrong but I was under the impression that side effects from vaccines occur soon after administering the vaccine. The vaccine has been administered world wide and appears to be safe and effective. You scared homie?

So are you opposed to a harm reduction strategy because of all of the politically motivated speculation and conjecture going around?

The myocarditis (in the mRNA) and blood clot (in the non mRNA vaccines) are showing up as far as a month out. In fact, at this point, I'm kind of shocked that there's hasn't been an official recommendation from pediatricians that boys who receive the second dose of Pfizer sit out exercising (such as club soccer) for a week. There there's the weird one impacting women's cycles. Then there are bunch of other ones (such as GB paralysis) which are very rare but also typical of other vaccinations. So "safe" is somewhat in the beholder.

"effective" is also a definitional issue. Effective in reducing death and hospitalization and long COVID....absolutely....but for kids that's already on the floor so what's the point. Effective in reducing transmission....that one is more elusive because it's becoming apparent that the breakthrough infections are really high and the latest in the Lancet puts the effectiveness date at around 200 days now.

My impression the vast majority of people rushing out to vaccinate their kids are just scared of the virus. The vast majority of people digging in their heels are scared of the vaccine. But really all we are doing here is throwing darts.

 

[watfly]

Progressive income tax?

An income not a wealth tax, constitutional.

 

[espola]

An income not a wealth tax, constitutional.

Apply the tax to everyone, but with an exemption of a billion dollars.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

It’s not funny it’s sad. It’s sad how many people have been convinced to protest intelligence by risking their lives and the lives of others. Many of these people claim to be motivated by pious intentions, but from my POV they are clearly more closely aligned with evil. Karma can be deadly.

How about some onions to go with your chocolate ice cream.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

I suggest you educate yourself on what is actually in the proposed tax law changes.

I am also amused by the proposition on the concept that "wealth tax" is unconstitutional since it is the foundation of the funding of most local and state governments.

Coocoo.

 

[Desert Hound]

Decent analysis but you are minimizing the death of approximately 500 kids. I could be wrong but I was under the impression that side effects from vaccines occur soon after administering the vaccine. The vaccine has been administered world wide and appears to be safe and effective. You scared homie?

So are you opposed to a harm reduction strategy because of all of the politically motivated speculation and conjecture going around?

Harm reduction strategy?

Of those 500 or so kids, most has serious long term health issues.

The logical course of action would be to tell parents of kids with serious health issues to have those kids vaxxed.

You don't need to mandate the vaxx to the rest of the 70 million population who have no risk.

And back to the original point. We don't have LONG terms studies on possible side affects. Saying most people experience an issue soon after receiving a vax is a very different concept with knowing IF there are long term issues.

On a general basis we dont know long term if...

- is it safe to administer the vax to pregnant women
- to people who have certain types of health issues
- to people currently taking certain types of drugs for other issues
etc etc.

Those are things that are done with other drugs brought to market. That takes years of testing.

To mandate a vax that has not gone through rigorous long term studies in not wise policy not quite frankly ethical.

 

[Desert Hound]

To the unrealized gains issues.


Unrealized capital gains are not income, they are simply increases in value.

If your home was worth $200,000 last year and $300,000 this year, you have an unrealized capital gain of $100k. A 15% tax bill on that value increase means the homeowner would have to pay $15,000 to the IRS.

--

Biden is suggesting that he will pay for the new spending by taxing people not on what they have earned but what they could earn from selling assets. Most people have assets that increase in value over time. Consider a family home. Over the course of many years, it can easily double in value, but you do not “realize” that money unless you sell it. Biden is suggesting that the government should start taxing you based on any increased value of the things you own, even though you have not actually made that money. It doesn’t matter that the home or stock or art could ultimately go down in value after you are taxed on the higher value. Indeed, if you tax some unrealized gains, you could in extreme cases force people to sell assets like a home to pay the tax on income that they did not make.

--

Additionally, another issue arises if the previously taxed asset goes down in value; an issue where the depreciation or loss becomes a negative tax liability. Meaning if you already paid taxes on an increase in value for an asset, and the following year that asset drops in value, the federal government would then owe you money to recompensate you for a realized loss. If you paid $15k on a $100k increase in the value of an asset, and the following year that asset drops in value by $100k, the $15k you paid would be deducted from the current year tax liability.

There are constitutional issues with the federal government taxing wealth or assets; however, the overarching premise behind every proposal is that all wealth belongs to the government. You hear this ideological perspective when people say “tax expenditures” or spending in the tax code. The idea is that your income is what the government permits you to keep, NOT what your labor has achieved.

The ideology behind taxing “unrealized capital gains” is the same ideology in the premise of “sharing the wealth.” It is an ideology that stems from a belief that your dollar earned comes at the cost of my dollar not achieved.

--

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/10/27/beware-the-government-that-wants-to-tax-unrealized-capital-gains/

 

[watfly]

The myocarditis (in the mRNA) and blood clot (in the non mRNA vaccines) are showing up as far as a month out. In fact, at this point, I'm kind of shocked that there's hasn't been an official recommendation from pediatricians that boys who receive the second dose of Pfizer sit out exercising (such as club soccer) for a week. There there's the weird one impacting women's cycles. Then there are bunch of other ones (such as GB paralysis) which are very rare but also typical of other vaccinations. So "safe" is somewhat in the beholder.

"effective" is also a definitional issue. Effective in reducing death and hospitalization and long COVID....absolutely....but for kids that's already on the floor so what's the point. Effective in reducing transmission....that one is more elusive because it's becoming apparent that the breakthrough infections are really high and the latest in the Lancet puts the effectiveness date at around 200 days now.

My impression the vast majority of people rushing out to vaccinate their kids are just scared of the virus. The vast majority of people digging in their heels are scared of the vaccine. But really all we are doing here is throwing darts.

If I hear a another so-called expert on TV say that approval of the vaccination for 5-11 year old's is a "turning point" in the fight against Covid, I'm going to have to buy a new tv, or at least a new remote.

I put the over/under on 5-11 vaccinations at 40%, but I could be convinced to set it lower.

 

[crush]

How about some onions to go with your chocolate ice cream.

Add this sauce to go on top of Husker's chocoolate ice cream.

I'm still tripping out today. Dre wants me to rush my child to get the jab. Why? My buddy Colin just told me one of his clients just got whacked by a company in San Francisco. Dude has worked for company the last 14 years. The last three years from home in Wildomar CA. Basically, works from home. He cannot get jabbed for religious reasons and tomorrow is his last day, regardless if he works from home or in the office. The owner is big time political asshole and is showing his cards and showing this poor guy the door. He's flying up tomorrow morning to walk in and officially get whacked. He has some ER funds and his attorney is taking his case pro bono. This is crazy that were watching people get fired for no jabber doo and kids will not be allowed to play without jabs and boosters and masks.

 

[espola]

To the unrealized gains issues.


Unrealized capital gains are not income, they are simply increases in value.

If your home was worth $200,000 last year and $300,000 this year, you have an unrealized capital gain of $100k. A 15% tax bill on that value increase means the homeowner would have to pay $15,000 to the IRS.

--

Biden is suggesting that he will pay for the new spending by taxing people not on what they have earned but what they could earn from selling assets. Most people have assets that increase in value over time. Consider a family home. Over the course of many years, it can easily double in value, but you do not “realize” that money unless you sell it. Biden is suggesting that the government should start taxing you based on any increased value of the things you own, even though you have not actually made that money. It doesn’t matter that the home or stock or art could ultimately go down in value after you are taxed on the higher value. Indeed, if you tax some unrealized gains, you could in extreme cases force people to sell assets like a home to pay the tax on income that they did not make.

--

Additionally, another issue arises if the previously taxed asset goes down in value; an issue where the depreciation or loss becomes a negative tax liability. Meaning if you already paid taxes on an increase in value for an asset, and the following year that asset drops in value, the federal government would then owe you money to recompensate you for a realized loss. If you paid $15k on a $100k increase in the value of an asset, and the following year that asset drops in value by $100k, the $15k you paid would be deducted from the current year tax liability.

There are constitutional issues with the federal government taxing wealth or assets; however, the overarching premise behind every proposal is that all wealth belongs to the government. You hear this ideological perspective when people say “tax expenditures” or spending in the tax code. The idea is that your income is what the government permits you to keep, NOT what your labor has achieved.

The ideology behind taxing “unrealized capital gains” is the same ideology in the premise of “sharing the wealth.” It is an ideology that stems from a belief that your dollar earned comes at the cost of my dollar not achieved.

--

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/10/27/beware-the-government-that-wants-to-tax-unrealized-capital-gains/

I'm not surprised that you quote those whiney little bitches.

 

[Grace T.]

Harm reduction strategy?

Of those 500 or so kids, most has serious long term health issues.

The logical course of action would be to tell parents of kids with serious health issues to have those kids vaxxed.

You don't need to mandate the vaxx to the rest of the 70 million population who have no risk.

And back to the original point. We don't have LONG terms studies on possible side affects. Saying most people experience an issue soon after receiving a vax is a very different concept with knowing IF there are long term issues.

On a general basis we dont know long term if...

- is it safe to administer the vax to pregnant women
- to people who have certain types of health issues
- to people currently taking certain types of drugs for other issues
etc etc.

Those are things that are done with other drugs brought to market. That takes years of testing.

To mandate a vax that has not gone through rigorous long term studies in not wise policy not quite frankly ethical.

They didn't really even study the risks involved with vaccinating people who had COVID before. We are only now beginning to understand they may be superimmune. But we still don't have a handle on what the side effects. Anecdotally, we know people who have had it before have been having much more severe side reactions (such as vomiting and nausea) from the first shot as opposed to the second shot. But the point is they didn't study it.